9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 823 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of Petition Factual disputes Held that - Many of the grounds are raised on factual aspects of the case with regard to the utilisation of the duty free indigenous capital goods - the petitioner also relies upon various documents in support of the plea that they are not liable to pay the duty demanded the Court is not inclined to go into various factual aspects of the case as several grounds are on disputed questions of facts - there is an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 the writ petitions by-passing the alternative remedy are misconceived Decided against Petitioner.
Issues:
Challenging show cause notice for duty amount in Central Excise case. Analysis: The judgment involves writ petitions challenging a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise demanding duty amounts from the petitioners. The duty amounts in question were Rs.97,76,976/- and Rs.3,12,23,901/- for the respective cases. The petitioners raised grounds related to the utilization of duty-free indigenous capital goods and presented various documents to support their claim of not being liable to pay the duty demanded. However, the Court noted that many grounds were based on factual aspects, leading to disputed questions of facts. The Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declined to delve into the factual disputes raised by the petitioners, emphasizing the availability of an effective alternative remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court deemed the writ petitions as misconceived for bypassing the alternative remedy. The Court highlighted that the petitioners were disputing facts through various pleas, making it inappropriate for the Court to adjudicate on the matter conclusively. The judgment emphasized that since the petitioners acknowledged the issues as factual disputes, they expressed willingness to provide a fresh reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions but granted the petitioners the liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The judgment concluded by dismissing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions and imposing no costs on the parties involved.
|
